inherit
17836
0
Apr 29, 2024 15:20:43 GMT -8
daniel
27,203
December 2003
danielsmith
|
Post by daniel on Feb 5, 2011 18:32:13 GMT -8
I agree with you on that. But if it is public illegal activity then i should think they should be able to stop it. If you were selling pirated dvd's on the street they could arrest you. Why can't they do it if you are pirating things over the web? Yeah, I agree they should pursue it. I don't think it should interfere with legitimate activities and I think the tax dollars invested should be put to more effective solutions. Mostly, I see this as pointless and a waste of tax dollars. It's well past time for the media companies to find new business models. That file sharing is so widespread and rampant is testimony that society has redefined it's moral position. It may take a few decades for the legal framework and industries to catch up with it, but it's something where the cat's out of the bag and no amount of "well it's ILLEGAL!!!" will stop it. The best we can do now is encourage businesses to find suitable new business models and allow our police focus on crimes that have exponentially greater impact on society.
|
|
inherit
157975
0
Aug 4, 2018 8:42:46 GMT -8
Inter{n}ational
HAI DER (:
2,727
September 2010
grasshopperandgrim
|
Post by Inter{n}ational on Feb 5, 2011 18:40:14 GMT -8
if only laws didn't urge people to break them so much... of course, people should take a bit of responsibility and realize that there really is no point to pirating and such. then again, most stuff doesn't have that much of a point. xD
|
|
inherit
Within Moriarty's Web
7801
0
Sept 26, 2020 6:36:42 GMT -8
Storm
25,378
February 2003
storm914
|
Post by Storm on Feb 5, 2011 18:41:48 GMT -8
if only laws didn't urge people to break them so much... of course, people should take a bit of responsibility and realize that there really is no point to pirating and such. then again, most stuff doesn't have that much of a point. xD
It's not so much as people wanting to break the law because it's there to break, but rather than most people are too cheap to buy it themselves. They want it free and yesterday and to hell with everyone else.
|
|
inherit
153968
0
Nov 19, 2012 15:03:05 GMT -8
Thesealion
New Phone Who Dis?
4,124
April 2010
joemaggio
|
Post by Thesealion on Feb 5, 2011 20:02:29 GMT -8
I agree with you on that. But if it is public illegal activity then i should think they should be able to stop it. If you were selling pirated dvd's on the street they could arrest you. Why can't they do it if you are pirating things over the web? Yeah, I agree they should pursue it. I don't think it should interfere with legitimate activities and I think the tax dollars invested should be put to more effective solutions. Mostly, I see this as pointless and a waste of tax dollars. It's well past time for the media companies to find new business models. That file sharing is so widespread and rampant is testimony that society has redefined it's moral position. It may take a few decades for the legal framework and industries to catch up with it, but it's something where the cat's out of the bag and no amount of "well it's ILLEGAL!!!" will stop it. The best we can do now is encourage businesses to find suitable new business models and allow our police focus on crimes that have exponentially greater impact on society. I understand your argument but if you were the person having the stuff stolen from you i bet you wouldn't feel the same way. If you work hard to make something that people will buy you don't want people selling it for free...
|
|
inherit
29252
0
Sept 6, 2012 15:46:49 GMT -8
Derek‽
28,655
August 2004
kajiaisu
|
Post by Derek‽ on Feb 5, 2011 20:30:08 GMT -8
Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 981--the law in which the seizure warrant was issued--forfeited property is not to be returned, and is considered the property of the Attorney General's office. Even if it never goes to court, and therefore the domain owner is never prosecuted for the offence? Doesn't that mean that technically he's not guilty, and therefore shouldnt have forfeited the name - like if they took DVDs and then found they weren't pirated? It's important to understand that this type of seizure isn't like taking DVDs as evidence, it's more like an injunction to cease access to the offending servers. American-based registries are simply told to redirect that domain's traffic. The lack of a trial is, unfortunately, irrelevant. It's like a restraining order in that a judge has the authority to grant a seizure warrant under probable cause and in absentia of the accused party.
|
|
inherit
75778
0
Mar 23, 2024 3:21:54 GMT -8
alexx
still here .... watching
3,399
March 2006
alexx
|
Post by alexx on Feb 6, 2011 0:58:53 GMT -8
I understand your argument but if you were the person having the stuff stolen from you i bet you wouldn't feel the same way. If you work hard to make something that people will buy you don't want people selling it for free... You watched too many "You wouldn't steal a car" videos It's not so much as people wanting to break the law because it's there to break, but rather than most people are too cheap to buy it themselves. They want it free and yesterday and to hell with everyone else. I don't care for the SuperBowl but if I wanted to watch it live I couldn't. And isn't the Superbowl on free channels like NBC/ABC/CBS ? This isn'y PPV, anyone can see it. SO it's not about paying money it's about accesibility Seriously this corporate divinization of big companies from some Americans is mindblowing. This constant demonization of gov and this idolatrization of companies that continually screw the American people is reaching Stockholm syndrome levels. It's important to understand that this type of seizure isn't like taking DVDs as evidence, it's more like an injunction to cease access to the offending servers. American-based registries are simply told to redirect that domain's traffic. The lack of a trial is, unfortunately, irrelevant. It's like a restraining order in that a judge has the authority to grant a seizure warrant under probable cause and in absentia of the accused party. I am familiarized with the EU laws on this. See I though that since some of them are European that law will apply. Also it is stupid not to give the domain back if the courts find them legal. Anywas I find this whole ordeal frankly idiotic. A change in domain to *tv *me and no coonections to USA can make those sites air tight against the draconian laws. Heck it gives those sites publicity: "wait there are sites where I can find my favourite game"
|
|